Why We Still RANT -...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation -

Shane - This one's for you. THIS is why we are STILL ranting about the smoking ban. It is an infringement of the U.S. Constitution. Our forefathers were specific & careful about how it was worded, to prevent infringements like this.

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/property.htm
Property Rights

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property,"without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Property rights seem to many people an archaic notion, a relic of a time long gone when the status of an individual would be determined by the property he owned. In such an era, most property belonged to a small portion of the population, and that ownership gave them not only wealth and social standing, but political as well as economic power. It recalls a time when a majority of the people owned little or nothing " women, for example, lost all control over what property they might have when they married " and, thus, government and society were under the control of a small elite. Most of us would prefer the present situation, when property is more widely distributed, when people may enjoy status on the grounds of their accomplishments as well as wealth, when women are no longer hobbled by outmoded notions, and when the right to vote is now universally enjoyed free of any requirement to be a landowner.
But the right to own and enjoy property has always been an important part of the rights of the people. At the Philadelphia convention that drafted the Constitution, John Rutledge of South Carolina reminded the delegates that "property was certainly the principal object of Society." They did not really need much reminding, because the Framers all believed that respect for an individual's property rights lay at the heart of the social contract. Not only did they build institutional safeguards into the Constitution to protect those rights, but the nation soon added important provisions through the Bill of Rights to buttress that protection. Moreover, the Founders did not intend that these protections extend only to land or discernible assets, but to all the rights inherent in property " real or personal, tangible or intangible. They believed that property was" the guardian of every other right," for without the right to own and use and ere could be no liberty of any sort. Today property rights are still important to the American people. The right to own what you have created, built, purchased or even been given as a gift " knowing that the government cannot take it from you except under stringent legal procedures " provides the material security that goes hand in hand with less tangible freedoms, such as speech and privacy. People whose economic rights are threatened are just as much at the mercy of a despotic government as are those who find their freedom of expression or their right to vote curtailed. When talking of rights, legal scholars often speak of a"bundle of rights," and by this they mean that all are closely connected. If we no longer believe that property rights underlie all other freedoms, we do believe that freedom is a seamless tapestry, in which every one of the rights in that bundle is important to the preservation of others. This is certainly true of freedom of speech, and it is no less true of property rights... ...The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause is an additional and powerful protector of property. Everyone recognized that at times the governm individual property owners.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) To say that the appropriation of a public easement across a landowner's premises does not constitute the taking of a property interest but rather"a mere restriction on its use" is to use words in a manner that deprives them of all their ordinary meaning. Indeed, one of the principal uses of the eminent domain power is to assure that the government be able to require conveyance of just such interests, so long as it pays for them. We have repeatedly held that, as to property reserved by its owner for private use, the right to exclude others is"one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property. The Bill of Rights there are two sections of the Fifth Amendment directly relating to property " no person shall be"deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No votes yet

And I believe that anybody who voted for a smoking ban, that strips freedoms & rights from private business owners, is GUITY of desecrating the U.S.Constitution & The Bill Of Rights. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Because YOU didn't want to have to use YOUR freedom to choose to not enter places of business that allowed smoking; because you don't like the smell; because you've 'quit' & don't trust yourself to not be tempted; because you simply 'don't like smoking' & felt that ALL private businesses be required to bend to your wishes - whether they wanted to or not; even if it destroyed their business model; even if it caused serious financial losses - you felt YOUR wishes should trump the private business owners. This is like crumpling up The U.S.Constitution, and tossing it in the trash. For centuries, U.S. soldiers have fought for the freedoms & rights the writers of The U.S.Constitution & The Bill Of Rights were so careful to write. I think it's disqusting to be destroying them to satisfy individual whims.

And shane - we won't stop ranting about this, because it's wrong. I believe in choosing my battles carefully, and this one is too important to just roll over on. Too important to just shrug it off because it's a 'done deal'. I will NOT 'get over it'. I believe in standing up for what I believe in. You seem annoyed that I still 'rant' about it, so I suggest that you simply scroll past threads that may annoy you.

Must be done reaching around his friend while they carouse these web pages.

We may as well replace the Constitution with a ATM/debit card, because it's the money that dictates our freedom, not a piece of paper.

And that's the shame of it.

Due process. Due process was received when the issue was put up to a public vote. Actually your argument is based in the 14th Amendment. Technically the 5th amendment does not apply to the states. So basically, under your reading of the 5/14 amendment government lacks the power to regulate anything specifically enumerated, since anything can be construed as a "right". The right to drive drunk, the right to public nudity, right to prostitution, the right to pedophilia. Each of these could be construed as an invasion of someones liberty. Don't you think its rather ironic that with the drive to recall Carty and the will of the public should be abided, yet on this issue the will of the public is to be ignored.

I think the term "just compensation" might also be questioned. There are many examples where what the government considers "just compensation" is neither.

Say there's been a lake front cottage in your family for generations. It's not much, but it's been a fun get away for your family for years (My wife's grandmother has such a place that HER grandfather orignally bought...)

Now say some developer wants to put in condos, gets the local gov't behind him, has them reassess the local zoning, and has them evaluate the property value.

The local township then seizes the property and gives grandma the bucks. Just?? Compensation? Where's grandma going to find another lakefront property for the money they're giving?

If there's lakefront property available for her to buy, why doesnt the developer just buy THAT property instead?

My own grandpa had his property ED'd when they put in Rt 6. But that was for a road, and that was farmland.

But to take property from one private person and give it to another business?? That's not what ED was designed for. Not in the slightest.

ED

I've always been against Eminent Domain (ED), primarily because it has been abused so often. I found the SCOTUS ruling on ED so completely wrong that I really do wonder where the Bill Of Rights will end up in my lifetime.

My family owns property in Sylvania Township that developers have been after for a long time. Between the spineless township trustees and the avarice of Sylvania's city council and Mayor, we'll probably lose it to ED.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

But in AMERICA, the private business owner's freedom to run his business as he chooses, as long as they are legal activities - should TRUMP the whims & desires of the public that is merely INVITED, but NOT REQUIRED TO ENTER. A bar or restaurant is not like the post office or court house.

as you say business owner's freedom to run his business as he chooses, as long as they are legal activities. But, here comes the philosophy... if the activities are legal then at some point previous it was the whim of the public to make it legal e.g. smoking, voting laws. Therefore is it not right that the whim of the people may change and then make the activity illegal through the means available, e.g. marijuana, alcohol, racial discrimination, etc? So isn't every law the whim of the public? Wouldn't due process be denied to the citizens , a violation of the 5th and 14th amendments, if they could not petition the government to change laws they felt needed changing i.e. redress of grievances from the first amendment. See http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Redress and http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment

So therefore the it is within the right/whim of the people to change the laws as they see fit, another guarantee from the Bill of Rights.

LTLOP - The only way they could pass smoking bans that infringe on private business owners rights to allow legal activities - is if they made tobacco illegal. Illegal the same way that heroin or crack are illegal. If is truely the dangerous substance they claim it to be- then ban it as a dangerous substance. But that won't happen - because the govt. & Big Pharma, et al are making too much money from it. Until they DO make tobacco illegal, it is still a legal product & activity. I have never said that smoking is good for you - however, there has never been a single study done that's proven shs to be even a low risk for disease. (go back & re-read earlier links that list every study done, with results). They pushed this ban using the magical phrases of "no known safe exposure" - like the sun? Or, "for the children" - smokers pay more for the medical care of other people's children than any other citizen in this country. Or, that society doesn't want to pay smokers medical care - and yet, obesity & overweight people are more expensive medically than smokers - actual smoking, not just shs. At any rate - until they ban tobacco nationwide as a dangerous substance & plan to enforce it with laws like they do crack or heroin, it is still a legal substance & activity - so your point is moot.

thomasjay - the smoking ban was promoted as a health issue, and was fueled by using false & bogus studies. Every study on shs ever done (go back & read the studies & results) has shown that shs does NOT pose even a remote risk to disease or death. The most extensive, & best study ever done on shs (I am repeating myself because the doubters won't take the time to go back & READ the studies & results), that the surgeon general was not able to get his hands on, was done in Germany. It concluded that there is NO risk by shs, that the numbers were too small to even consider to be a risk. Yes, smoking is bad for you. But you are not at any risk of disease from shs by sitting in a bar, restaurant, etc. for several hours a week that has shs. The antis & Big Pharma & ACS MADE shs into a health issue, when it is NOT a health issue. Why? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Go back & dig up the archives here & on toledotalk - under 'smoking ban', and then, 'follow the money'.

Also, if a customer went into a restaurant & ordered fish, they'd expect it to be not tainted. All restaurants,etc. should be required to do is to hang a sign "Smoking Section", or "NO Smoking". The customer can choose to enter, or not - the 'risk' is up to him to take, or not. But don't confuse the shs propaganda with what is true & accurate. The masses bought into the hysteria - easy to blame all of lifes' ills, or Aunt Minnie's cancer to shs. If you are of such a fragile nature that even a wisp of shs causes problems, then you probably shouldn't even be out of your house.

I just heard on wspd today that some town in California (Monterey I think), passed a smoking ban on all police officers. If they are found to be smoking even off duty, or in their homes or private cars, they are going to be fired. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

thomasjay - I will stop ranting, and accept the smoking ban (s), WHEN it is put on the national ballot & voted for by the entire country to make it an illegal product. If the majority of this country voted to make it illegal to buy, own, sell, smoke - then I'd accept that it was done in a fair manner. Of course, that is assuming that the voting machines would not be tampered with. Shortly after the Ohio smoking ban was 'passed', there was a tiny blip of an article (hidden well) about the voting machines, and how they tested them, and the majority were inaccurate.

But that won't happen, because there's too much money to be made by tobacco taxes. Tobacco taxes fund SCHIPS almost entirely. Nobody asked me if I wanted to help pay for other people's kids health care, and yet, smokers pay extremely more than non-smokers do for it. Big Pharma doesn't want people to really quit. They need people to keep buying smoking cessation products. Which raises another issue if the country made tobacco an illegal product - all those expensive (and worthless) smoking cessation products are NICOTINE.

all those expensive (and worthless) smoking cessation products are NICOTINE

Not really Starling. I have decided to quit smoking. Not because of the Smoking Ban (I too feel it is an infridgement on our liberties and will continue to support smoker and business owners rights) but realized that I can save about $1800.00 a year by quitting.

I have tried all the nicotine products like the patch and gums with no success. So I have decided to give Chantix, a non-nicotine product a try.

Varenicline (trade name Chantix in the USA and Champix in Europe and Canada, manufactured by Pfizer, usually in the form of varenicline tartrate) is a prescription medication used to treat smoking addiction. This medication is the first approved nicotinic receptor partial agonist. In this respect it reduces cravings for and decreases the pleasurable effects of cigarettes and other tobacco products and, through these mechanisms, may assist some patients in smoking cessation

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

KrazyKat - good luck with the Chantrix. My sister was prescribed Chantrix and couldn't afford it (very expensive, and insurance doesn't pay a dime). She works at American Airlines, and told me that several co-workers had to be taken out on stretchers, could not breath, from Chantrix. Some of the other common side effects, that aren't usually even mentioned under Chantrix side effects, are extreme tongue swelling & slurring of speech. Many people complain of extreme nausea - sometimes it only lasted a couple of weeks, but often it lasted the entire time on the drug. Many people have had sleep disorders - insomnia or grogginess. One of the most common side effects, is stomach pain & kidney damage. I would not be able to take Chantrix because of ulcers (anything that can cause stomach pain is out for me - I've had a couple of bleeds already.) Some people have had some success with Chantrix - but they admit that it does nothing for the oral & hand habit, it does not help the psychological 'fix' that smoking helps. A lot of people complained of being hungry all the time & weight gain. And extreme nightmares seems to be a common complaint. I'm not trying to give you a hard time about using it - I really do hope it works. Just be aware of the side effects - and they aren't usually always listed. One of my sister's co-workers almost got in serious trouble at work, because the supervisor thought she was drinking on the job - her speech was very slurred & she was acting overly giddy (not her normal demeanor). She works in reservations, so it's not good to sound like a drunk. But it was the Chantrix that caused it all. Extreme giddiness seems to be another of it's unmentioned side effects. I guess it's back to pick your poison. This magic bullet seems to come with potential stomach bleeds & kidney damage, nausea, & inability to breath or swallow.

shane - No, I did not try Chantrix (I can't medically). I did not post the RX side effects simply because KrazyKat already has them, included in his prescription, and they are easy enough to find. The side effects I did mention are not mentioned or advertised as often - and they DO happen with far more frequency than you're implying. Over half a dozen American Airline workers in my sisters office were hauled out on stretchers in a period of 3 months because they couldn't breath. I don't know, but that seems a bit high to me to be considered a rare side effect. My sister was there, and saw them haul them out. That is one reason she's afraid to try Chantrix (other than the expense). They were discussing Chantrix on wspd a couple of months ago, and tongue swelling, slurring of speech, difficulty in swallowing, breathing problems, stomach pain, nausea & constant bad headaches were said to be 'to be expected', and common to the drug. For some users, the side effects subside in a few weeks. For others, they do not, and last the entire duration of the drug's use. It's also a LOT of pills to be swallowing every day (double after a month I think). There are psychological effects - sleep problems, mental fogginess was a big complaint, by far more than a few users.

That said - I did not attack Chantrix to turn anybody off of using it. Actually, I don't think I even attacked it at all - I said 'good luck, I hope it works'. And I meant it. I am not opposed to anything that helps people stop smoking - there's no reason for me to not want them to stop smoking. If people are successful doing it, then more power to them. My point was just that the drug companies that make these smoking cessation products try to make them sound like magic cures - when in fact, their success rate is horrible (ask any smoking cessation counselor what their success rate it - I heard one say that at best, it was about 5 percent after 2 years.). And they all come with sometimes, dangerous side effects - that sometimes, are as dangerous, or more so, than smoking (I'll take a bit of shortness of breath over instant stroke any day.) And no smoking cessation product does a thing for the oral & hand fixation - which could be likened to a compulsive thing. KrazyKat feels optimistic about using Chantrix, so hopefully, it will help him quit (mindset is a lot of it I think, you have to really want to stop smoking). But there is no ominous reason for me to post fake side effects - they are very REAL, and do happen with a very large percentage of those who use Chantrix. You don't have to believe me on this - just google chantrix side effects. Read for yourself what other users have said. I think shane needs a nap.

the local government now has the backing of the Supreme Court to such a thing. Roads are different, that was the point of eminent domain, to help devlop infrastructure.

How is this health regulation--and the smoking ban is a health regulation--different from any of the other health regulations that bars and restaurants have to follow? If this gets thrown out as unconstitutional, wouldn't they have to throw out all the other health regulations as well? Do you really want that to happen?

health rules for a restaurant do not apply here, although that straw man argument has been, and will continue to be thrown into the mix. The BOH has the right to into PLACES THE PUBLIC CANNOT SEE/GO-i.e. the kitchen-to see if the food is stored and prepared properly,since The public at large has no control over this. On the other hand-with smoking-The public at large-can see through the front windows whether or not smokers are allowed to light up, and free to go elsewhere.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

they're nicotine or NOT, they're still owned lock, stock, and barrel by Big Pharma, so that part makes no difference, Star.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Instead of advice-by-anecdote, I encourage you to check out the facts. http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/chantix_ad.htm

You'll see that the side effects Star listed are rare, like most side effects we hear about from prescription drugs. In most cases they affect fractions-of-one-percent of those in trials. And with regard to the particularly worrisome problems she listed -- kidney damage, for example -- clinical trials have shown no such problems.

Now, I'm sure nobody would take medical advice from somebody on a message board who may or may not have any clue what they're talking about, but I figured it prudent to offer facts in opposition to the opinion.

Personally, I'm surprised Starling didn't offer such facts herself.

No matter what, millions and millions of quit smoking, saving their own lives, and saving the rest of us heard earned money. I've seen people in my family who smoked for decades quit over the last 10, 15 years. Sometimes it took years to entirely snuff out the habit. But they're far better off now than they were then.

Smoking is a plague on our society and it's finally being recognized as such. There's a huge support network available to you.

Good Luck!

...made one ruling, Ohio's Supreme Court made a different one based upon the state constitution.

Complete details and link on my blog:

http://thurbersthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/08/eminent-domain.html

Contaminated food is not a legal product.

Is a cigarette a legal product? YES or NO.

I quit smoking and I'm no better off now than I was when I smoked. Do you think I'm far better off because I now conform more to your ideal image? You're not my saviour.

Big Jim

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.